As with cinema, as with newspapers. If I had watched Conan the Barbarian on cinema, I would have seen a very lewd scene in extenso, unless I had shut my eyes and held my ears - and then someone would have tapped my shoulder and said "it is over now". As I saw it in clips on youtube, I could easily skip the scene in question. This is how youtube is as much a help to, among other things, purity and (for very gruesome scenes) non-callousness, as the video is. And as cinema and TV are not. After this he goes on to the real issue this week, cyber-gossip.

"The moral principle that we must consider in this regard is that the reputation and honor of any man, living or dead, is a spiritual good. To damage this reputation by rash judgment, detraction, or calumny is in itself a grave offense against justice and charity even though, did the injustice not regard grave matters, the fault might be venial."

The fault might be venial too if one had a real excuse of assuming the worst and no idea of the real but hidden excuse of someone. Apart from that I totally agree.

"Therefore insults, slander, and boastfulness are always sinful."

Insults and slander, totally agreed. I am not sure how boastfulness comes into the question. It is an undue concern with one's own honour rather than an undue callousness or illwish about one's neighbours. But even agreed that boastfulness as an inner tendency were always in the fountainhead of sin known as pride, actual boasting about something may occur without boastfulness. St Paul twice at least found something to actually boast about - Christ and his Cross and the sufferings he had endured - and who dares call him boastful. So, when confronted with something which seems like boasting anyone, including a priest obviously, is obliged to seek other explanations than boastfulness.

For that matter, there is a question of when slander is slander and when it is due concern for the public well. Is it slandering to state one has not seen Obama's birthcertificate? Or that such and such a profession builds its clientele by slandering individuals into being "officially" classified as belonging to it? Or that such and such a profession hinders the due fulfilling of "honour thy father and thy mother"? Or that abortionists are murderers? I think not, absolutely not.

One more thing: if the slander takes the form of private conversation, telephone calls or email exchanges from which the slandered person is cut off, then he cannot reply. But if the slandering is done on friends' FB walls, or in blogposts, or on youtubes, then the victim of slander has access to the actual words and can answer them. Even more easily than he could answer an article in a newspaper or a broadcast. So far and as long as he has free access to certain internet means of communication, at least.

One example, I think I have been slandered and know I have been insulted by a certain man I knew but have blocked on FB. So as not to risk slandering him, I anonymise his name on the blogpost where I publish our word exchange. He once at least claims in principle not to have slandered me, because he has said nothing behind my back which he has not said openly to me - which he could truthfully say after just insulting me with the worst I think he said behind my back, namely implying that I as an homeless man am not in a position to think properly, since sleeping on the street (which I generally do not, thank God) and being all the time infected (which is not the case either) I have impaired thought capabilities. That and trying to state my English is faulty in comprehension of what others say (I did have to ask about an expression, but it was more colloquial than what one usually finds on the web) is what I consider as slander if stated behind my back and as insult if it is stated in my face. Here are two blogposts where I debate with him, in first case about Perry Lorenzo and Mark Shea, in second case about myself more properly speaking:

Why the likening to Gríma Wormtongue? Well, that too was a person who hid discouragement and improperly disqualifying someone under the excuse of concerns for his health. Thanks to internet I could answer back.

Blockquotes = first of them my quoting myself from link, all others requoting parts of "Grima Wormtongue's" statement.

What I wrote the unpleasant man after contacting our mutual friends:

Following was sent to our mutual friends:

You are a common friend with me and Such and Such. On this blog post I have anonymised him (before the general public), but he is the man who most often opposes my arguments [meaning, in context, on the debate in link below] and, in my view, does so in a very unpleasant way on this debate. I quit it and I quit the group where it was held. Now, here is the debate, you ought to know as a previous to now friend of us both, and then you do what you like:

I: Do not insult me like you did on the board or say similar things behind my back to common friends again. Thanks.

He: Just for the record, I've never said anything about you to anyone else I haven't said to you in public and the reason I don't want any more contact with you is that it's almost impossible to have a coherent discussion with you where you don't misrepresent or completely ignore what I say.

AND HE CAME BACK

He: Wow, you totally devastated my friends list. I feel so all alone.

I (quoting his stats): "Friends, 3,904"

He: "Friends"

I ASSUMED HE MEANT SOMETHING. So I tried to act as if his comment bore the bitter undertone I seemed to find in it.

"I have recently been defending you in the double attack launched as a petition to EWTN. Both on account of finding the layman Perry Lorenzo saintly - no doubt not meaning cohabiting with another man is good example as such, but I think you meant he gave lots of good example apart from that, including to his partner - and on account of being a layman, blogger and making money from that. It is a thing I do myself, namely be a layman and a blogger but except so far make money (unless you count the 3000 and some more € from granny last year as from my writing) and that is anyway what I intend if I am not remaining stopped and stumped. As has the case been so far. But I agree, the way of livelihood is honest as such and who is such and such petitioner to block someone from it. And finding one man saintly, whom afterwards one sees was homosexual, but general evaluation still stands to one, and then being confirmed he lived chastely is not a disqualification from that calling. Nor is being homeless (before making the money) such a disqualification."

Still feel like judging laymen bloggers who touch on theology? Or, for that matter, misrepresent the story of Perry Lorenzo or the "canonising" implications of Mark Shea's words about him?

He: I'm sure he'll love that.

I mean I don't know if you're really a bum, but I'd say that your illogical rumblings are your biggest problem. Maybe if you found regular lodging in a secure facility with regular warm meals, you would be more lucid? I'm guessing the lack of regular sleep has given you a low capacity to heal inflammation and possible infections as a result of sleeping on the street. You probably haven't accounted for how the inflammation itself damages your ability to think either.

Hence, why your writing and ability to interact meaningfully with others is shit?

I: I think your supposed loneliness comes more from your attitude than from mine.

He (forgot about his feeling so lonely an hour ago): Wtf are you talking about?

I, commenting on most pieces of his second to last:

"Maybe if you found regular lodging in a secure facility with regular warm meals, you would be more lucid?"

Another repetation of the accusation against my Creator, that He did not give me lucidity enough.

"I'd say that your illogical rumblings are your biggest problem."

If they are so "illogical" why are you so afraid of denouncing openly such and such a lack of logic in debate before others.

"I'm guessing the lack of regular sleep has given you a low capacity to heal inflammation and possible infections ..."

I am not inflammated that often and though a pain from an inflammatory state may momentarily disrupt my thought, I am certainly not damaged in my ability to think.

Your very denigrating guesses about me - barely disguising disdain with commiseration - are exactly the kind of attitudes which may have landed you with impaired communication with some of your friends. According to what you stated yourself above.

So, you think I rumble illogically, do you? Get on, my essays are on the internet, refute a particularly "illogical one", if you find such a thing. And, as you requested from me earlier: leave this inbox alone. Thank you.

DID HE leave it alone?

He: I dunno Hans, you don't even bother to read what I write and distort my words. You're probably overconfident about you Engl comprehension as well.

I: Oh, one more thing:

"I mean I don't know if you're really a bum ..."

I am quite often begging on the street, I am quite seldom any evening knowing beforehand where I will sleep. And my English comprehension is very fine too thank you. It seems some guys find their words "distorted" whenever they are refuted. And you are one of them.

mardi 4 décembre 2012

I see no need to imitate Oscar Wilde's carnal sin (he admitted he deserved prison for it), just because I want to imitate his intellectual virtues - shown in works like The Ghost of Canterville (and in the fact of being more candid than modern gay movement, despite same temptation). It seems he died asking or being reported as asking for extreme unction. God rest his soul. Here is another writer (in his case blogger), whom I think of approximately as of Oscar Wilde. It seems he lived with a partner, but that his relation to him was completely chaste. Mark Shea has been attacked for saying he considers him a saint. Now, if being enthusiastic for Benedict XVI is a virtue, he was more virtuous than I. At times I lean towards sedevacantism. Either way, here is the blog post in which Mark Shea recommended him:

And here is what I think may have been an extra temptation, if not to the vicious act itself (which anyway ended before he died, according to his partner), at least to the continued cohabitation, in guise of what he could think of as a partial justification:

"
Indeed, I have talked to priests who tell me that there are people they counsel in gay relationships for whom it best to allow the relationship to continue for the time being since, for reasons specific to that relationship, it would result in something more destructive to end it."

Question is whether the worst are those priests or people insisting that the homosexual are never called to a life like Josh Weed and always to a life in celibacy - even if they never entered orders. Or, as we talk of it, whether those priests are not also misled by that same ideology./HGL

In guise of PS, another response of mine to another attack on Mark Shea, quoting first an attacking petition:

"Mr. Shea is not an ordained priest or deacon and has no degree in either theology or canon law. Yet he regularly argues his opinions on faith, morality, and liturgy on your publication. There's something disturbingly Protestant in assuming that an unordained, untrained layman's opinion is somehow worthy of being voiced in a religiously oriented publication."

Not so at all. Theology for beginners is by Sheed and Ward who were laymen. Michael Voris and Robert Sungenis are as much laymen as Shea. GKC and JRRT who brought me to the faith were laymen. So was Hilaire Belloc. And even if CSL was no Catholic, much of his theological observation is worth reading. Another layman. As was, for that matter, St Justin the Martyr. I do not know how you stand with FSSPX, but they certainly do make publicity for the theological work of three laymen: Michael Davies, one German, and Henry VIII (only one work: the one that earned him Papal recognition). It is not a duty of good theologians to be priests, though there is a duty of priests to be good theologians.

And which many devout do not find odious. Now, you might say they are not orthodox, but not only are you a layman (technicality) but (real issue) your take on previous question makes you suspect of not being top of orthodoxy.

As to his take on the gay man he considers a saint, some saints are great sinners converted, and Shea was very much obeying an injunction that can be heard from priests not to judge since it is not he who is priest.

"
Anyway, no saint would tolerate Shea's slander and frequent misrepresentation, and your appraisal of Shea is very naive indeed.

"
It was none of our business anyway. The man passed the Shea sniff test after all.

"
The boyfriend sent Shea an e-mail saying that they were 'chaste', but Shea canonized him before that."

[The man who wrote above actually has on his likes one St Francis of Sales, who invited the one Barnabite from Italy who was interested in heliocentrism after Galileo had already been condemned in 1616: how is that for avoiding guilt by association? And he does furthermore not say that before the ex-lover sent Mark Shea the e-mail - in which he stated they practised chastity not sodomy - Mark Shea was not aware of his existence: how is that for misrepresenting Mark Shea's motives? I will not disclose this man's identifty, unless he asks for it, but he is a teacher and a fan of Unam Sanctam or Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.]

Here is from the man who posted the petition I quoted from:

"
Hans, you immediately begin by misquoting me. I didn't say that laymen shouldn't do theology. I said that UNTRAINED laymen should not do theology in a major Catholic publication. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you overlooked those little details.

Concerning saints who were once sinners, John the Baptist told us to bear fruit worthy of repentence. It's not enough to just declare to the world that you've repented, you need to show evidence. If an openly gay man living with a lover claims to repent, the first thing he should do is move out of the sinful situation. A gay man living with a 'former' lover is as suspect as a 'former' drunk living in a bar room or a 'former' pedophile moving next door to a school. Why would a 'saint' choose to live perpetually in the near occasion of sin?

Jesus told us not to judge other PEOPLE, but he certainly told us to discern their actions and messages. He told us to be on the lookout for false prophets, and to know the tree by its fruit. He also said that we should be as meek as lambs but as cunning as serpents. I'm not judging the gay priest who lived with his boyfriend, in the sense of condemning him to Hell. I'm saying that his example would not be the ideal to follow, which is the basis upon which the Church declares someone saintly."

[As already stated about Oscar Wilde, I do not think his carnal sins are an example to follow. I do not know how he came to believe Perry Lorenzo was a "gay priest", unless it is his trump that laymen cannot do theology unless given episcopal sanction, but here is anyway my answer to another man I will not name unless he states he wants me to:]

As to untrained, I would like to know how you can tell that Shea is so.

As to the other guy involved in the life of the man Shea found saintly (I do not think he considered him worthy of canonisation), I had no idea they were living together. Do you know if Shea had an idea about it? I mean like know for certain?

One more point: the Church does not declare people saintly while they live, it declares them saints, when they are dead. The adjective saintly is precisely for private appraisal going well before any possible canonisation, and is sometimes applicable in circumstances where the exterior would prohibit any canonisation. You cannot declare that Lancelot and Guinevere were canonisable while sharing dwellings while she was an outlaw for their previous adultery, but you cannot deny the possibility that during the time they did become saintly people.

[The following is to a woman, whom I cite briefly, and whom also I will not name unless she asks me to:]

Here I find two diverse things:

"And, he was silent on the teachings of the Church on celibacy as a gay man, living with his lover."

The second part I have already dealt with. As far as I know or knew when writing previous, Shea had no positive knowledge of the two actually living openly together.

But there is not any traditional teaching of the church that gay men need to live celibate. A monk or priest o religious who is thrown out of orders or order because he commits a sin of sodomitic reek does need to live celibate, because that is what he promised, he just no longer has the help of a community of men which he abused.

But as to living celibate, I have found no Church teaching previous to 1975 (post-Vatican II) saying a layman having committed or been tempted to sodomy needs to stay away from Christian marriage. It is a clear and natural teaching that Oscar Wilde sinned with the young man he went to prison for having sinned with, but it is not at all a teaching that Oscar Wilde must have sinned when previously to that he married his wife.

If sodomy is again outlawed and punishable, should one require those having committed it while legal to live celibate? It is like asking fatty to climb Mount Everest. One should ask fatty to walk half an hour per day and one should ask the more sex addicted gays to try to get an understanding girl (and of course not lie about their difficulty), which is what for instance Josh Weed has done so far.

[Same woman:]

"
Hans, you simply just don't want to listen.

"
You do not want to know the truth.

"
You are defending the indefensible.

"
If Shea did not know the gay man was living with his lover and he did not know that as a gay man living with his lover the individual did not testify to the teachings of the Church on celibacy - writing about his knowledge about the saintliness of a homosexual man was dumb.

"
When he was told the substance of this man's scandalous witness, Shea went on a rampage. That rampage continues.

"
He is a very sick individual.

"
A predator in the pews

"
EWTN should not be employing the man.

"
He is writing about what saintly conduct is, without knowledge - and then when he is corrected by those with knowledge, he stalks and bullies them for years."

Stalks? Bullies? Now, you know what saintly conduct is, are those terms charitable about Mr. Shea? And what about this: "If Shea did not know the gay man was living with his lover ... writing about his knowledge about the saintliness of a homosexual man was dumb." - So where is your own knowledge before writing if you pretend the Church teaches homosexuals should be celibate? And is he "very sick" or "a predator"? Sick people are usually not very good at hunting!

[Man posting petition, again:]

"
In the gospel, Jesus warns his followers to beware of false prophets who will enter amongst his sheep like wolves. He says that they enter the sheepfold not with the shepherds but by some other means. Shea has no degree in theology or certificate in catechesis, nor is he commissioned by his bishop. You compare him to Voris, but Voris began his work with the approval of his bishop. I myself am commissioned by my bishop to teach theology and prepare people for the sacraments in the schools of my diocese.

"
The Church declares someone a saint as a way of recommending that person as a role model to the faithful. Again I say that I am not attempting to judge whether this priest is in Heaven or Hell. I am not judging the person or the soul. But since he was openly homosexual and publically living with a lover, I would not recommend him as a role model for the faithful. That's common sense. Shea made a complete ass of himself, then spent weeks attacking and abusing anyone who pointed it out."

And the layman who pointed out that Nestorius was heretic was presumably also commissioned by his bishop (Nestorius)? Your criteria of when a layman may speak are not the historically correct ones. For printed books, yes, those are the criteria. Or were up to Paul VI. But if you buy a book and disagree with it and make a note in the margin, that does not help anyone except those having excatly your copy. If you read a blog and comment, your comments is readable to everyone reading the message. Which means that correcting a blog in public is easier than correcting a book. Which means that the criteria for books do not necessarily apply to blogs, even if Paul VI had not disapplied them for books also.

As to the question of FACT, whether the guy whom Mark Shea talked about was a) publicly living with a lover or ex-lover, b) was thereto counselled or not by a priest who had tried and seen fail other means (but not marriage to a woman) to make him chaste and c) Mark Shea knew all of the story (which he did not in case you are right, since he said "I presume he lives chastely, but it is none of my business" quoting from my memory) is small compared thereto. However, the fact that you are incapable of distinguishing what the Church means by canonising someone as a saint and what common people mean when privately opining someone "is a saint" or "saintly" is not exactly a recommendation for either your role as a theologian or for your bishop who commissioned you.

Who is that bishop anyway?

Here is the relevant quote, I see no more of a theological problem in this than in someone calling a deceased friend or relative dead outside visible limits of church "a man I consider as a saint":

[from Mark Shea's blog post:]

"I didn’t know he was gay (same-sex attracted) during his lifetime and only found out about it after his death. Dunno if he lived a life of perfect celibacy or not and, frankly, regard it as none of my business, though my assumption, given all I know about his profound love of Jesus and the faith is that he was faithful in that area of his life as in all the others I ever saw."

He got 296 or 269 comments on that blog post, which strengthens my confidence that publishing a blog message is not exactly like publishing a book, even if publishing a book on theology were still an offense in canon law if done without the bishop's approval.

"I don’t need somebody to offer me a donut in order to make me feel better about my gluttony. I need them to support me as I try to eat less and move more."

My advice, if it can practically be followed: try to go on a pilgrimage. There are not just individuals but also families doing the Pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. In your case it might be better to take Santiago de Chile.

Apart from praying for something which I have not yet quite got, at the bones of the saint and apostle and martyr, I also had a better level of breathing and heart beat. I am not exactly a glutton, but physically lazy./HGL

PS: I got there walking my own pace, mostly. Not running with runners. I only sometimes did walk faster than usual to keep up with nice people walking faster than I am used to. Sad story I have since then had reason to suspect some of them were not just nice, but trying to change me (without knowing what or who I am in the first place).

Appendix B, Dialogue or Quarrel continues:

Lady already expressed above

Hans, you seem to believe that reporting abusive conduct is the crime.

Using words like stalk and bully to report abusive conduct is Christian. What is not Christian is the abuse.

Shooting the messenger is how pedophiles flourished for 60 years. Thise days are gone

It is exactly Shea's business to know if the conduct of the gay man living with his lover was worthy of claiming he was a saint for the same reason he would not stand outside the local wwhorehiuse and tell Catholics to make the asinine presumption that the conduct of the people coming and going was sanctity and sainthood.

Hans, you reasoning is outlandish.

Manipulative.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

Hans is a homeless man from Paris. He's worth talking to, very interesting and Catholic but is not always lucid.

HGL=me

Not always lucid is very wrong sir, it is an insult.

Homeless man IN Paris is however right.

As to bullying and stalking, I have seen no evidence of such beyond affirmations here. The position that it was Mark Shea's business to know would have made sense if he had anywhere close to pretended canonising as a bishop (or since Urban VIII : a Pope) canonises but he has not.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

You're not lucid now.

HGL=me

That is another insult.

Equally wrong to previous one. [when I came back I found another man had posted:]

Friend of Michael Voris

Mark Shea? Is that the one who criticizes the great and holy Michael Voris STB?

HGL=me

I am not sure, but it is quite possible.

As we are speaking of Michael Voris (having as [petition poster] stated) episcopal approval to start, EWTN has episcopal approval and an ability to transfer it to the writers it choses to publish. Including Mark Shea - unless he has indeed episcopal approval himself.

Anyway, I like Mark Shea somewhat better than Michael "the anti-cafeteria rally" Voris (has he been embracing traditional causes beyond obedience?) and lots better than the man who just said I was not lucid right ... some fifty minutes ago. If it was for momentarily neglecting that since Urban VIII only Popes canonise, I remind you that before him simple bishops could do so too. I think he finds it easier to deal with me by calling me mad (and implying homelessness usually goes along with madness, because he mentions both in one breath), than to deal with what I accused him of, as regards Mark Shea.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

Shea's a slandering malefactor.

HGL=me

You just showed yourself an insulting malefactor.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

You're defending a slandering malefactor.

HGL=me

I am defending a man whom an insulting malefactor calls a slandering malefactor. And a man whom I find slandered by that insulting malefactor.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

Is he guilty of slandering people?

HGL=me

Shall we gently ask our common friends (we have some) to choose between us? Some are a bit too frail in my mind to be brutally confronted with an unfriending plus notice that they can refriend me when unfriending you. And no, as far as I know Mark Shea is not guilty of slandering people.

You are guilty of slandering him.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

How's that?

HGL=me

(citing him)" The boyfriend sent Shea an e-mail saying that they were 'chaste', but Shea canonized him before that."

You do not say that before the ex-lover sent Mark Shea the e-mail - in which he stated they practised chastity not sodomy - Mark Shea was not aware of his existence: how is that for misrepresenting Mark Shea's motives?

Unless, of course, you take seriously the accusation that Mark Shea arrogated to himself the power to canonise. NOt a quite lucid appraisal of any Catholic layman.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

It's not lucifer to defend Shea's arrogance, no.

ER lucid, but lucifer works too

HGL=me

I saw no arrogance in him. YOU are the one accusing him of arrogance, not I remember!

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

He said the man was a Saint. What is that but a canonization?

HGL=me

It is an appraisal. A private opinion about sainthood. It is not binding and is not meant to be binding on any other Catholic's conscience, unlike episcopal and later papal canonisations. If 1600 a Paris bishop canonised someone, all Catholics in Paris are obliged to recognise the sanctity. In 1650 that was reserved to the Pope. One can have a private opinion about sainthood of this person as much as one can have a private opinion of valid accession/retention of papacy in that other person, without any kind of arrogance.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

Sure, and if that person happens to be a cohabiting self-declared homosexual, it's a scandal.

And it's presumption as well.

HGL=me

The cohabiting was a scandal given by that person while alive, not a scandal in anyone not knowing thereof but knowing him through internet thinking him a saint for what he wrote, or for that matter knowing him from a visit to other parish and chatting with him. And no, having and expressing a private opinion, without any trace of an intention of formally obliging any one else's conscience is not, has never been and will never be presumtion. Just as opining that Liberius was no longer Pope (until finding out he had been forced to sign Sirmium) was no presumtion of part of people scandalised by that signature.

Words such as "presumption", "arrogance", "canonisation", "playing the pope" and so on have been heavily abused by people polemising against sedevacantism.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

Assuming knowledge of something without possessing that knowledge is exactly what presumption is.

HGL=me

or, to get to saints, some people had been told to burn a heretic witch in Rouen, when they were ready and she had died, they said "we are lost we have burnt a saint"

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

That's lucid...

Was she living with her lesbian girlfriend?

HGL=me

Mark Shea had knowledge of the factors that taken together made him consider Perry Lorenzo a saint. The "anglois" who burnt St Joan of Arc had knowledge of her end which they witnessed. Noone, not even the Pope canonising someone, can know all events in that person's life. As little as Mark Shea knew Perry Lorenzo was living, scandalising outwardly, but otherwise chastely, with a partner.

So, either every canonising Pope is presumtious (a protestant heresy) or the lucidity of St Joan's executors and the appraisal of PL by MS are not.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

Yeah, he knew he was a self-declared man who lays with other men.

Shea had no knowledge of the mans chastity.

HGL=me

So? He was obliged to presume chastity up to getting an argument to the contrary. The contrary position is indeed Pharisaic. And after he got to know he was "homosexual", not that he was "sodomite" as you imply.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

If you don't care about public scandal I see no reason to continue discussing anything further.

HGL=me

Feel like withdrawing your words about Mark Shea? YOU are causing public scandal. YOU just called St Joan of Arc lesbian.

I am of one presumption : calling your words "was she living with her lesbian girlfriend" and insult to St Joan. You may have been ironically pointing out a difference between cases as you percieve them. However, she was sharing camp tent with people like Gilles de Rais, and the bishop of Beauvais declared that a "scandal" just as much as you do.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

It would be as absurd and probably malicious to impute sodomy to any Saint.

It would probably be as absurd to impute sodomy to any Saint, as to say a man who insisted he was a sodomite is a Saint.

HGL=me

Bishop Cauchon of Beauvais did it (or more properly, lesbianism). You are imputing sodomy to a man whom we must lucidly and charitably regard as living his last years rather as a chaste homosexual.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

There are no such things as homosexuals.

Besides, Shea said it was none of his business if the man was or not.

HGL=me

That is another story. PL may have imagined being homosexual. But his friend hardly imagined he was abstaining from sodomy.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

I think there is no point in continuing this discussion.

HGL=me

BUT IT IS none of my or your or anyone else's business to investigate whether a man was chaste or not, except for things like formal canonisations or - obversely - condemnations. And a private appraisal of someone's sanctity comes before that. Oh, feel free to quit the discussion, b t w.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

If you're representing a Catholic news organ, it certainly is your business to know that a man is not living in scandal before you endorse him and his ideas.

Especially if you're going to mention a sin which cries out to heaven...etc as being "none of our business".

HGL=me

Oh, his ideas are among other things that Benedict XVI is a Pope and a good Pope. Maybe you are getting sedevacantist? As for me, I endorse Oscar Wilde's ideas, except his defense in the trial. He was for instance lucid enough to know he merited prison. And a secret sodomy may cry out to Heaven, but as long as it is not cried out on earth - and it was not - it is still not my business to poke and ask about it.

"It was not" - correction: there was for a considerable period of time none to cry out even, as far as we know.

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

Then it's not your business to promote it either.

It wasn't secret, it was made plain and shouted from the rooftops, or Shea's blog.

HGL=me

Besides your reasoning presumes Catholic News Organs are a step in Catholic Hierarchy, they are not. Are you still angry at Mark Shea for promoting Perry Lorenzo and his idea that Benedict XVI is a good pope? And as for what was on Shea's blog, you read it as the devil reads the Bible!

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

Yeah, gotta go.

HGL=me

Mark Shea wrote that so and so was "homosexual but his partner said they lived chastely" which is NOT a synonym for "sodomy".

Do, do!

Man who thought MS should have known the fact before pronouncing

It's kind of hard to have a one sided conversation where you don't really read or understand what I'm writing.

HGL=me

*holding up a mirror* (is that whom you are talking to?)

Mark Shea is not and was not promoting Perry Lorenzo as PHYSICAL COMPANY, which might have been foolhardy about a man whom he had seen enter a housedoor repeatedly in company with same guy and that was NOT what he knew about PL, even. He is promoting PL's ideas, one of which is that Benedict XVI is a decent Pope. Can you point out an idea in PL's blog which you do NOT want promoted?

And PL is no longer physically keeping anyone any kind of company. So, any risk with promoting PL is gone. Except of course if you can say PL was heretic and not just a chaste/abstinent homosexual. Where on PL's blog do you find a heresy? Mark Shea linked to it, I linked to it in my blogpost including previous debate. Go on, where in it is PL heretic? Where in it does he show MS was wrong to link to it? I might be in for a surprise, I have not read much of it yet.

There are sedevacantists who do not consider PL as heretic, just mistaken about this one:

But of course, since you are very strong on EENS, you might be against PL for promoting Hans Urs von Balthasar.

However, I think John Paul II was promoting him too. And Benedict XVI canonised him. Or, rather, beatified. One step short of.

(will probably get some answer tomorrow, for now you are gone)

Lady already expressed above

Hans, this is trash.

The pedophile Mark Shea considers a Saint.

Writing such a piece demands knowing whether the pedophile was celibate. Get it?

HGL=me

Oh, who the hell says Mark Shea is a pedophile? Or do you mean Perry Lorenzon was one before he died? Despite fact that his adult partner said they he lived chaste?

Lady already expressed above

If it turns out he was living with his 9 year old lover Mark Shea is responsible for tbe terrible scandal.

Rather than come clean, he viciously maligns those who point out his stupidity.

HGL=me

ONE source for standard you claim MS violated!

Lady already expressed above

His conduct iis aggregious, as is yours..

Egregious.

Cease and desist from this nonsense.

In the Name of Christ.

You are defending Shea to bring attention to yourself. To be important to Mark and win his affection. You dont give a flying fig what you do to truth and righteousness.

It is despicable.

I am done giving you the attention you crave.

Authoring a piece called a pedophile Mark Shea considers a Saint would REQUIRE knowing whether the pedophile was celibate.

He cant claim he wrote the asinine piece not caring whether he.was celibate. Being celibate is mandatory knowledge for writing such a piece.

Pedophiles can convert and win their redemption but their past history of conduct is such a scandal, NOBODY in their right mind would write such a piece.

HGL=me

When did Mark Shea commit even one act of pedophilia? As far as I know he is married.

And you have still not answered where you get your standard about what Mark Shea should have known about Perry Lorenzo before calling him a saint.

Friend of Michael Voris

Mark Shea is the man who criticized and slandered my friend Michael Voris, STB. There seems to be an odor of modernism flowing from the person of Mark Shea.

HGL=me

Ah - Michael Voris is your friend. And anyone not liking him is modernist? And in what piece did Mark Shea "slander" Michael Voris, if I may ask? Supposing this has remotely anything to do with this question about Perry Lorenzo, of course.

"Vice may show itself as an inordinateness in the craving and eagerness to learn the truth."

- I may have been accused of that vice. And I may be very innocent thereof.

"This may be in four ways. One way is when this eagerness withdraws a person from another pursuit, which is his bounden duty."

- Studying natural and moral, especially societal, truth is not drawing myself away from any other bounden duty, rather I have made it my bounden duty.

"In another way, when one is eager to learn from an unlawful source."

- I have asked neither the devil nor the dead for truth. I have accepted an astrological advice offered once, but not sought it, nor sought any more astrological advice from the person, a woman in whom I find much to respect and few things to regret but those few things including the use of astrology.

"The third way is when one seeks to learn the truth about creatures without reference to the due end, which is the knowledge of God."

- I have on the contrary referred knowledge of alternative theories of "astrophysics", such as angelic movers rather than merely gravitational movements, very constantly to Prima Via and to Quinta Via (cf. STh, Ia P, QII, AIII, corp), and what I have said about the angel of the sun - supposing as I habitually do it is one, though it is certain that not every angel has its star - is to honour his fidelity to his maker and to his maker's mother.

"A fourth way is inasmuch as one is eager to know that truth which lies above his knowledge; for thereby men easily fall into errors."

- Herein I have at least sinned less than modern scientists: since they think they are more prone to get truths about the stars (or about earth and sea or about life and heredity) if taking away God and angels from the available explanations.